Saturday, December 17, 2011

In this post I saw it as quite funny that Labour's "two ticks" campaign was probably too much for the brainpower of Labour Party voters out West.
I've just remembered something else quite hilarious. All I need to do to explain it is:

"She said the Green Party candidate had also publicly
endorsed her, telling people at a community meeting to give their
electorate vote to Ms Sepuloni. The Green Party candidate got 1676 votes
last election – more than Ms Bennett’s winning margin."

Bennett won with a margin of 632 in 2008. I am certain Bradford’s name on the ballot paper will guarantee some of those candidate votes will go from the Greens to Bradford, despite what a candidate says at a meeting – let’s say 500. Bradford will also, by default, pick up other disgruntled votes – let’s say 500.

So Bradford gets 1,000 candidate votes, the Green candidate gets 800 (a total of 1,800 – more than the Green candidate got last time) and Sepuloni is left wondering “what the F*** happened to *her* votes”. This wouldn’t matter so much in a seat that isn’t so marginal, but when you’re arguing over 632 votes, it will.

The other factors are this: MMP historical voting patterns show that the Right is smarter at splitting its vote. How is three left wing candidates good for enabling one left wing candidate to win? Also, Bradford is one of the best campaigners in the country. Her name, voice and campaign will ensure she gets vital candidate votes, despite her best intentions.

Most votes are won in the middle, not on the fringes. Remember Chris Trotter’s “Waitakere Man”? Sepuloni needs to take votes from those voters to win. I am quite confident she won’t do it.

Disclaimer: I don’t live anywhere near Waitakere.

PS: Feel free to call me a troll, Lynn P. Can’t see it myself.

PPS: If I am proven wrong I will gladly turn up here and admit it.

Here are the results after the special votes came in, and leading to the victory for Sepuloni.